Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 24, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001063

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Jacob's Tent Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the additional development of 5 new mixed-use buildings to the subject property

Reference Number: 22 196279 STE 19 OZ

Property Address: 2575 & 2625 Danforth Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-001063

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-001063

OLT Case Name: Jacob's Tent Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: February 5, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Jacob’s Tent Inc. ("Applicant/Appellant")

Daniel Artenosi Rowan Barron

City of Toronto ("City")

Jason Davidson

Metrolinx

Robert Wood Callum Hutchinson

Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd.

Matthew Lakatos-Hayward

Tri-Metro Investments Inc.

Did not attend

Minto Communities on behalf of Minto (Dawes) GP Inc.

Belinda Schubert

Dandaw Developments Ltd.

Daniel Angelucci

DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION and background

1The appeal arises following a non-decision by the City regarding applications to amend the Former City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86 and the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 (collectively, the “ZBAs”) to permit specific development at 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue (the “Subject Lands”). The Subject Lands are approximately 3.18 hectares (“ha”) in size, have dual frontage onto Danforth Avenue and Main Street in the City, and are currently occupied by four residential apartment buildings that range from nine to 29 storeys in height.

2Disposition of the matter has now come before the Tribunal as a settlement hearing.

3Originally, the sought after ZBAs were to facilitate development of five new mixed-use buildings on the underutilized portions of the Subject Lands, with heights of 15, 29, 33 and 55 storeys. The plan would have created 1,543 new residential units and 6,073 square metres (“m²”) of non-residential gross floor area (i.e., retail), while retaining the existing four apartment buildings and all of the within 1,123 residential rental units, except 19 units in one of the existing buildings would be lost to accommodate the proposed development.

4Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the Applicant/Appellant is now pursuing development of four new mixed-use buildings on the underutilized portions of the Subject Lands, with heights of 15, 55, 35 and 49 storeys. This plan creates 1,649 new residential units in the four proposed buildings, plus 1,439 m² of non-residential gross floor area within three of the proposed buildings. The new plan also increases the number of residential rental units within the four existing apartment buildings from 1,123 to 1,127 as part of a planned modification to one of the existing buildings to facilitate the new development.

Evidence and submissions

5In assessing the proposed settlement, the Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed and considered the following evidence, materials and submissions:

• the uncontested opinion evidence of Benjamin Larson (“Expert Larson”), a Registered Professional Planner and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, contained in his comprehensive affidavit sworn January 31, 2025 (marked as Exhibit 1);
• the document presented by the Applicant/Appellant and referred to as “Visual Planning Overview” (marked as Exhibit 2);
• the Parties’ oral submissions in support of the settlement; and
• a draft Interim Order (together with Attached draft ZBAs and Conditions for Final Approval) jointly submitted to give effect to the proposed relief sought.

Decision

6The Tribunal understands that the aforementioned sworn affidavit evidence of Expert Larson reflects revisions to the applications before the Tribunal that were reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties.

7The Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence of Expert Larson as presented in his affidavit and similarly finds that the subject applications, as revised:

• will result in the intensification of the large, underutilized Subject Lands, within a 5-minute walk to an existing subway station and GO station, and the proposed built form will be located, oriented, and massed to establish an appropriate relationship within its immediate and broader development context;
• represent a comprehensive, coordinated and integrated approach to intensification of the Subject Lands which promotes a mix of uses, residential intensification, delivery of key infrastructure that the City has planned for the area, and a carefully considered approach to the public realm and open space;
• will correspondingly advance and support relevant matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act;
• are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2024), insofar as it supports an appropriate level of intensification and the achievement of complete communities in a location that is well served by existing public transit, including higher order transit, and the redevelopment will optimize the use of the Subject Lands with a compatible built form that makes efficient use of existing infrastructure;
• conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan by:
  • proposing a mix of residential and commercial uses, amenities, pedestrian connections and public park that support the Mixed Use Areas designation
  • conforming to the general objectives and relevant policies for Mixed Use Areas in the Official Plan, including built form, and the development criteria for healthy neighbourhoods and for development within the Mixed Use Areas designation; and
  • achieving an appropriate transition to Neighbourhoods, prioritizing pedestrian infrastructure, representing a scale of development that is appropriate within the Subject Lands’ existing and planned context, and promoting use of transit;
• conform to the Site and Area Specific Policy (“SASP”) 552 (OPA 420) public realm related policies:
  • by expanding the network of parks, creating mid-block connections, and enhancing the public realm adjacent to the Subject Lands through widened sidewalks and an urban plaza at the corner of Danforth Avenue and Main Street;
  • as it relates to policies related to complete streets, by widening Danforth Avenue through conveyance; and
  • with respect to built form, by reinforcing the character of the area along Danforth Avenue with a 4-storey streetwall.
• conform to SASP 577 (OPA 478), which seeks to establish a complete, mixed-use community with an appropriate land use mix that includes a full range of housing, retail and commercial uses, employment uses, community service facilities, public parks and open spaces;
• achieve the minimum intensification targets for the Subject Lands within the boundaries of two Protected Major Transit Station Areas;
• have appropriate regard to relevant guidelines including the:
  • Danforth Avenue Urban Design Guidelines and its vision for vibrant, high quality, appropriately scaled mixed-use development within its Study Area;
  • Tall Building Guidelines with its recommendations related to the design of tall buildings, including tower separation and podium design;
  • Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Study with its recommendations related to streetwall height, ground floor retail considerations, and sidewalk zones;
  • Growing Up Guidelines with its recommendations to achieve better functioning neighbourhoods (i.e public realm, pedestrian connections), buildings (i.e. daycare) and units (i.e. future SPA); and,
  • the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines.
• represent good planning and are in the public interest.

8It was further opined by Expert Larson, and accepted by the Tribunal, that the Proposed ZBAs should be approved in principle, but withhold a final order until the City and the Applicant have advised that the Preconditions have been satisfied.

OLT-23-001063 is not consolidated with OLT-23-001064

9The Tribunal notes that the present Appeal (the “ZBA Appeals”; OLT case no. OLT-23-001063) are not consolidated with a separate but related appeal concerning approval of plans or drawings for a site plan control area brought under s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act (the “Site Plan Appeal”; OLT case no. OLT-23-001064).

10The Tribunal makes this note for the sake of clarifying the record, after the Appellant made it clear upon filing the respective appeals that the two matters were to be dealt with separately, and that such a separation of the matters was noted within the decision of the first Case Management Conference for the present ZBA Appeals (decision issued March 11, 2024). However, in error, the Tribunal has referenced the Site Plan Appeal in the Title of Proceedings for the past two Case Management Conference decisions for the present ZBA Appeals.

interim ORDER

11THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that, in accordance with provisions of section 34(26) of the Planning Act, as amended:

1. The appeal by Jacob’s Tent Inc. of its applications for amendments to the Former City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86 and the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, in respect of the Subject Lands, is allowed, in part;

2. The Zoning By-law Amendments included as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to this Interim Order are approved in principle;

3. The Tribunal shall withhold its final Order until such time as the Tribunal has been advised by City Solicitor that:

   a. the Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendment submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the Director, Community Planning, Toronto East York District and the City Solicitor, in consultation with other appropriate divisions;

   b. the owner has at the owner's expense:

   i. provided confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity (and conformity with the accepted MFSR respecting Character Area C in Official Plan Amendment 478) to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or the determination of whether holding provisions are required in the zoning by-law amendment;

   ii. secured the design and the provision of financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure and/or new municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades and/or new infrastructure are required to support the development;

   iii. submitted a pedestrian level wind study, including a wind tunnel test, acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and that such matters arising from such study, be secured if required;

   iv. submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study, and a Parking and Loading Study acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the General Manager, Transportation Services and that such matters arising from such studies, be secured if required;

   v. submitted a revised Landscape Plan which includes a notation that a volume of 30 cubic metres of soil will be provided for each tree with future financial securities to be provided through the Site Plan Approval process, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation; and

   vi. provided the City with correspondence from the owner of the adjacent site to the south confirming that the access at the south end of the Site from the private lands municipally known as 6 Dawes Road will be permitted by a pedestrian and vehicular access easement in favour of the Site over the 6 Dawes Lands;

   c. a revised Rental Housing Demolition Application (22 196262 19 RH) in accordance with Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code and pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, has been approved to permit the demolition of existing rental dwellings at 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue and the owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, securing all rental housing-related matters, including tenant relocation and assistance, necessary to implement City Council's decision;

   d. the owner has conducted a tenant survey, and secured appropriate improvements to the existing rental buildings at its sole expense and at no cost to tenants (including the provision of a Construction Mitigation and Tenant Communication Plan);

   e. the owner has applied draft plan approval for a draft plan of subdivision application to secure, among other matters, the conveyance of land for and construction of new public roads and parkland; and

   f. the owner has entered into an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, as it read the day before the day section 1 of Schedule 17 of the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 came into force (the "Section 37 Agreement"), and that agreement has been registered on title to 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue, all to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, to secure the community benefits and matters of legal convenience at the owner’s expense, as set out in the Settlement Offer prepared by Overland LLP dated June 17, 2024 and accepted by City Council at its meeting on June 26, 2024 (Item CC19.16).

4. The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendments and the issuance of the Final Order;

5. If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendments, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 11(3) above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Monday, May 26, 2025, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Zoning By-law Amendments and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal; and

6. The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent prerequisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

12The matter may be spoken to should there be any issues with the implementation this Interim Order.

“K.R. Andrews”

K.R. ANDREWS

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

Attachment 1

Attachment 2